Bryan1

First U.S. Gas Station Drops Below $2 a Gallon http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-03/first-u-s-gas-station-drops-below-2-a-gallon.html

This was in the works since last year when MT changed the rules and gave TOTY to the Ram Ecodiesel eventhough it was not on sale the first week of January; thus robbing the 2014 Chevy Silverado and setting up for Chevy to make a comeback win with the Colorado against the new F-150.

............................................................

Unknown maintenance yet Ram was the one that needed repairs with a broken down AC and dead battery...

Ram 8650 max tow rating Payload 960 At max tow that would leave 95 lbs of cargo for the driver, passengers and cargo. Is this amazing capability? Ram needs to lower their tow ratings. Payload is only 960 so the Ram was already overloaded before they drove the truck. Not amazing. Ram needs to increase their payload ratings.

Good question. The right thing to do would be to update the article online but that would dismantle the whole idea that the diesel is better because it has a higher mpg. I have to laugh at this line: "It's amazing how capable this truck is" when talking about the Ram. The Ram's payload 960 lbs. Towing their 7000 lb trailer with 10% tongue weight, leaves you 260 lbs for a driver, passenger, and whatever else you have in the truck. GM and Ford's payloads were all over 1500 lbs.

I object. Current average is over 25% more. And I checked the national averages from today, yesterday, a week ago, a month ago and a YEAR ago. And the F-150 comes out ahead every time. Cost of fuel to drive 1000 miles using the AAA National Average Prices MT Real MPG Ram 22 combined Ford 19 combined Current average: Ram $163.14 Ford $148.05 Yesterday: Ram $163.36 Ford $148.42 One week ago: Ram $164.64 Ford $151.84 One month ago: Ram $164.73 Ford $161.68 One year ago: Ram $173.91 Ford $172.37

In the article it says nationally diesel fuel is 19% higher than gas; therefore, the 21% better MT Real fuel economy of the diesel covers the higher price. I pointed out in the comments that this was not correct. Nationally diesel is 27.5% higher than gas. And then you have to add for DEF. I was rebuffed by the MT writer who said at that time of writing it was only 19% higher. It has been over 21% for weeks. Mike Levine did a report 2 weeks ago when it was 23% higher nationally. The only response to that was from allpar trolls. There is no payoff when you consider the higher price of diesel fuel.

Richard nailed it...... 2014 5.0 4x2 at 17 mpg combined........2015 2.7 EB 4x2 at 22 mpg combined = 29.4% increase (Ford rounded down to 29%) There you have it.

Mike Levine pointed out that comparisons to the 2008 F-150 were done because the average trade-in age is 7-8 years. 2008 4.6 4x2 at 16 mpg........2015 3.5 EB 4x2 at 20 mpg = 25% increase 2008 4.6 4x2 at 16 mpg........2015 2.7 EB 4x2 at 22 mpg = 37.5% increase Of more interest to me........ my 5.4 4x4 at 14 mpg........2015 3.5 EB 4x4 at 19 mpg combined = 35.7% increase my 5.4 4x4 at 14 mpg........2015 2.7 EB 4x4 at 20 mpg combined = 42.8% increase

Gotta love this piece from AllPar: http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2014/11/f-150-economy-falls-short-of-ram-diesel "F-150 economy falls short of Ram diesel...The Ford F-150 XL carries a MSRP of $26,215 plus $1,195 destination; the Ram’s price for a V6 Tradesman is $25,060." So Allpar is comparing 2.7L EB vs Ram diesel fuel economy, but when he gets to the price he compares it to the Ram base V6 and doesn't add destination. The actual Ram Diesel price is $25,060. + $4770 in diesel options + $1195 destination. = $31,410. Ford 2.7L EB price is $26,215 + $0 options + $1,195 = $27,409. Ram is $4,001. more.

Respecting the EPA fuel economy announcement timing, Ram took a year to announce their Ecodiesel figures. Ford will have their EPA numbers out within a much shorter 8 months. Feb 13, 2013: It's Official Ram to get V-6 EcoDiesel http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/02/its-official-ram-1500-to-get-v6-ecodiesel.html February 4, 2014: 2014 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel Sets New Fuel-Economy Benchmark of 28 MPG http://media.chrysler.com/newsrelease.do;jsessionid=80071637E4CF502AB36FDC17D6E70FD3?&id=15305

Superchargers are expensive. Flashback to the 2007 F-150: UPDATE: We should've pointed out that the supercharger and intercooler that gets your F-150 Harley-Davison to 450 horsepower is a $6,500 option. http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/23/ford-introduces-2007-f-150-harley-davison-with-450hp/

Ice capades, Do you know what the changes are?

Another update to this story.... Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:16pm EDT "Also on Monday, five Fiat Chrysler brands including Ram pickups received low ratings in the annual quality survey by Consumer Reports, taking five of the seven bottom places among the 28 brands included in the results. Those brands are Ram, Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler and Fiat. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing at Consumer Reports, said that the U-Connect infotainment system in Chrysler Group models has improved but that system and the company's powertrains are still ranked poorly by the magazine's readers." From: U.S. safety regulators probe Chrysler Ram pickup recalls http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/27/us-chrysler-nhtsa-probe-idUSKBN0IG1P820141027

The last two are pretty funny.

HELL, MICH..-- Smaller, but not too small. Cheaper, but not cheap. More fuel efficient but not really gas-saving green machines They didn't give us the ah-ha moment we expected, but that could be a case of too-high expectations. Inside space, OK. Interior refinement, not so hot, except high-end models such as GMC Canyon SLT. Seats aren't the most comfy, but the SLT's are an exception. All the same under the upholstery, GM says, so should feel about the same. Not to us. The GMC high-end Canyon SLT with V-6 and 4x4 in particular is a nice-looking, sweet-driving vehicle. But it is about $40,000. Maybe nowadays that's a bargain, when nicely equipped full-size trucks are $50,000 or $60,000, but it seems pretty stiff. Fine, fine. But at least for the prices being charged, they must be decked out nicely. Not always. The GMC SLT is, but the Chevy LT isn't. It has all the stuff you want, but unpleasantly presented. Our main test vehicle was drearily monochrome gray inside. The plastics had the look and feel of cheap brittleness; a paucity of the soft-tough surfaces buyers seem to like these days. Well, geez. Surely the mileage part is a big improvement. Yes, with reservations. The four-cylinder, regular cab, rear-wheel drive Colorado returned 23.4 mpg on winding, two-lane country roads, typically running 50 mph or so, with intermittent wide-open throttle (because it's fun). The GMC SLT 4x4 with V-6 delivered 20.9. But the Chevy 4x4, V-6 was at 18 mpg. Our experience is that a full-size 4x4 truck could do that well Other gripes? Sure. To configure the crew-cab's back seat for cargo, you fold down the back, which then rests flat on the seat cushion. That makes a high platform for lifting your way-too-heavy suitcase or the mega-pumpkin from the greenhouse. The other GM assertion, that Colorado/Canyon will eat into Toyota Tacoma sales, seems part fair claim and part wishful thinking. A $38,000 Tacoma crew-cab was on hand here for comparison, and it didn't seem too bad. Colorado and Canyon seem credible, capable and, on high-end models, fairly comfortable and refined. But we didn't walk away feeling we'd been to right-size, right-price truck nirvana. Overall: Good trucks, but less satisfying and more-expensive than we hoped. More at the link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/healey/2014/10/16/test-drive-2015-chevrolet-coloradogmc-canyon-solid-machines/17373591/

October 3, 2014 Ford Motor is considering a return to the U.S. small-pickup truck market, which it abandoned by axing its Ranger in December 2011. Ford is scouring its international models for one that it could make work. It won't be the updated Ranger that Ford now sells outside the U.S., often seen by people outside Ford as a logical candidate. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/10/02/ford-ranger-small-truck-mpg-inexpesnive/16606495/

GM has issued a statement, and it is as follows: "General Motors has told dealers to halt deliveries of 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon midsize pickup trucks. These vehicles contain driver airbag connections that were wired incorrectly during the manufacturing process. This condition affects the vehicles’ two-stage airbag system by reversing the deployment sequence and disrupting the deployment timing of the driver airbag stages. This condition will cause the driver airbags to not function as designed. "The majority of affected vehicles are being held at the assembly plant or are in transit or unsold at dealerships. GM is working to validate the correction for the condition. Once that service procedure is released to dealers, customer deliveries can resume. A small number of vehicles have been sold. "Customers are being sent a FedEx letter and being contacted by phone to bring their vehicles to dealers as soon as possible. The repair will be done at no change and free loaner vehicles will be available. A safety recall will be conducted but population and other details are not known at this time. GM is aware of no crashes, injuries or fatalities related to this condition." http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/10/gm-experiences-first-glitch-in-midsize-pickup-rollout.html

Put a notice on the visor that says if you drive this vehicle you agree to be recorded for quality assurance purposes.

Probably not for awhile. The I-4 Colorado fuel economy numbers did not come out to 3 days after the Colorado started shipping to dealers and the V6 numbers 2 weeks before. The F-150 doesn't start building until the end of October. Maybe Ford will release a couple number at the TX State Fair this week.

GM announced the fuel economy numbers for both the 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and its fraternal twin GMC Canyon today, and those numbers are about what we expected—good, but not great. In fact, the 2.5-liter I-4's ratings are only a little bit better than the Colorado and Canyon's V-6 EPA ratings. Two-wheel drive, four-cylinder Colorado/Canyons with a six-speed automatic transmission get an EPA estimated 20 mpg in the city, and 27 mpg on the highway, with a combined rating of 22 mpg. Trucks with a manual transmission, because it’s slightly heavier, will get an EPA estimated 19/26/22. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/09/2015-chevrolet-coloradogmc-canyon-i-4-epa-ratings.html

Dear Autoblog, It's not a new model. It's a minor update.

This article is back, too. How many times is horsepower kings going to run this piece? They first published on 8/17 was linked on f150forum and now the same article is redated 9/9 and running again.

Ram's 30k max tow truck is only available in one configuration too: 4x2 RC. The only reason Ford has to keep explaining themselves is because these blockheads at Ram won't back down.